Hear, hear!

Throwing in the towel. before the first bell!

Proportional Representation is the holy grail!

a famous Chinese idiom==> “calling a deer a horse” (credit to zhao gao)

The makings of ‘The (pretend to be) Philosopher King and his Merry Men’

the people have become so indifferent, and the ruling class have lost their moral authority, sad, shame

PAP’s original slogan for the public was:

“From the People, by the People, for the People.”

After 43 years, the untold reality seems to be:

“From the PAP, by the PAP, for the PAP”

The title should also include, self appointed judges, parliament speakers, and pap (read: not Singaporean) elected president. Indeed a mockery of parliament and the democracy in this country. One party system is indeed a devil in disguise.

No wonder Singaporeans loss so much over the years and poverty on the rise due to mis management from the un-elected top people who make poor decision for us who did not give them mandate.

Proportional Representation is not really the Holy Grail, but it would be much better for Singapore if GRCs were abolished and replaced with a racially-proportionate voting system instead (if the govt really fears racism so much).

LHL has no respect for Singaporeans.

He just change whatever rules he need to keep him and his people in govt.

WMPs — They are there because no Opposition Party stood against them.

Not their fault leh. Blame Opposition parties for WMPs.

Very Bollywood-ish;
… storyboarded, scrypted, casted, filmed, and produced by themselves..

Well we, just end up buying the ticket (or be issued one) to watch the whole movie…

Cause totally LOST.
If LHL really sincere, remove the GRC and dare him to open up JURONG to vote for WHOM they want… got guts???

Being a singaporean without any experience of the de facto style of democracy ,
I hope to hear from International Democracy Communities their view on this situation. Someone out-of-the-box may give a more balanced view of the situation.

1 thing for sure, based on historical evidence, as long as this population continue to support without change, the nominated and appointed MP can increase. According to my understanding, there could even be a situation where ZERO as in NOT EVEN 1 Opposition PARTY MP need to exist in the house as long as at least 3 or more NCMPs (best of the losers) take up the seats.
Could NCMPs be independents? By independents are they considered non Opposition Party candidates? Or COULD there be ZERO NCMPs and instead have NMPs only?

Could someone help clarify this for the people, especially NAIVE and uneducated people like me? Some need translation into their 2nd language else they go to election without knowing / understanding these changes clearly.

I do not see why we should have MPs who have no power to vote against any bill proposed.

In effect, we get to hear more alternative views but that could be just that.
Like SKH, when a bill is passed, he voiced his alternative views against a bill or 2. The real effect is when it comes to passing the bill, I did not see him casting a veto vote.

To me at least, NMP is like a Blogger but one who is well versed in politics, voicing his alternative views.

I think many at TOC already qualify. Why need so many more in the house?

Why not get all NMPs to run for election as Opposition PARTY candidates to get elected to do the same voicing alternative views AND having the power to Make Decision on a Bill?

I feel that this change has too serious impact. If there is a PETITION, you can hear from me.

I guess it’s just to justify the ridiculous GRC system.

It’s not surprising that Mr Hri Kumar Sangaran should make the suggestion for unelected Ministers. After all, he is on of the ‘duly elected’ walkover MPs.

benedict

I fully agree with Andrew that the proportion of un-elected representatives is the fundamental reason why this government is so detached from the people. They have been running away with themselves these past years and seemingly they are going to run further away from us in the coming years.

Many are beginning to be awaken by this – that when we need the government most (minibonds & downturn), they are nowhere to be found – concerning themselves with the money-generating aspect of management more than the people’s welfare, with the numerous citizens struggling to survive the day.

Instead of helping the people with the here-and-now of daily survival, they are asking the people to help themselves to the whatever-skilling programmes made available so that they are better positioned to help the economy when it starts to recover. Who feeds these empty stomachs and pay their bills while they go for these ‘up-skillings’.

Having said that, we do know what we are up against where this PAP government is concern. And with this consideration, the recent twitching to allow more alternative opposition voices in Parliament cannot be too bad a thing. Like the cliché goes, ‘When in Rome, do what the Romans do’.

Since, the opportunity is now there for the plucking, for the opposition to think quality more than quantity, the onus is now on them to provide good credible candidates to stand for election and get into parliament, never mind yet, whether they are on the winning or losing sides.

While in Parliament, the onus is still on them to show Singaporeans what they are made of and perhaps win the confidence of the electorate at future elections to become truly the people-elected representatives.

What we must not do is to denigrate the concessions to allow more alternative voices to be heard into one where we continually nitpick to the extent that we fail to capitalize on the positives we can extract from them.

Let us begin by making suggestions and recommendations to the alternatives on what they can do, how they can maneuver and position themselves to take advantage of all these changes.

We must not forget that we are in for the long-haul when we consider that establishing a true democracy in Singapore will take time. Make this the turning point.

I think the suggestion for non elected ministers is not entirely bad. It is worth considering, although the appointments need to be limited in number and the mechanism for appointment carefully constructed. Are there not capable people who care about the people, have their interests at heart, and yet appear unapproachable and are therefore unpopular? Being an MP is an incredibly hard job – not all people have the patience and temperament for it. Yes, any politician needs to empathize with with people, but not all can be diplomatic – some people are frank and candid by nature. This does not always go down well with voters. I would think that having up to 2 non elected ministers i cabinet is ok, if for example, they must be approved by a super majority of MPs.

The only way to getting back a more representative Pariliament is through Voting in more Opposition -nothing more, nothing less.

If the citizens of Singapore continue to allow themselves to be cajoled, lulled, scared into their little corner of fear for voting against the PAP, we will get nowhere.

More NCMP’s are there only to provide ’sparring’ partners for the WMP’s where we know they won’t get hurt unless they trip over themselves.

So more should be done to tell people this latest schems is only an ‘illusionary’ idea of offering more Voices (read as NOISE) in Parliament from powerless opposition MP’s who cannot change their lives.

At the end of the day, the only way all these rubbish ends is when a GRC is broken. I did my part to almost achieve this during the last election. However, will the rest of my fellow citizens, who served NS but got unfairly treated by the pro-foreigner (Foreign Talent my ass.. my gov gave scholarships to foreigners who achieve poorer academic results than me while my parents slogged to pay for my tuition fees, despite the fact that I served NS).

Lets change the system. “YES WE CAN!!”

why not just have nominations and appointments ?
why should the people choose their leaders?

Whats the point of having more parliamentarians not elected by the people in parliament? The interest of the people will not be in their upmost priority in parliament. No doubt, with an increase in NCMPs we will see an increase in opposition numbers but remember NCMP have limitations in parliament such as – no voting rights for bill amendments etc. As for NMPs we all know that these are critical yet maintaining status quo individuals nominated by state actors filtered by the comittee consisting of state officials – hence increasing NMPs = strengthening and balancing amidst increasing opposition in parliament.

please
peasants
hear me out
what you want our prince
the outgoin prime minister to do?
he want to retire
you all want him to head
he cannot do
what he was ^elected^ to do
yet the 66% of the ^RICHED^ eattoofool
want him to stay
if you peeps are askin
the good ole days
of barisan socialists vesus the pay N pay party
than you peeps must be dreamin
what is singapoor famous for?
kiasu
kiasee
and kaykianged
where have you seen a true singaporean gentleman amon us?
the 33% leftovers perhaps?

” Roy on May 29th, 2009 9.05 am At the end of the day, the only way all these rubbish ends is when a GRC is broken. I did my part to almost achieve this during the last election. However, will the rest of my fellow citizens, who served NS but got unfairly treated by the pro-foreigner (Foreign Talent my ass.. my gov gave scholarships to foreigners who achieve poorer academic results than me while my parents slogged to pay for my tuition fees, despite the fact that I served NS).

Lets change the system. “YES WE CAN!!””

ur frustration is shared by many fellow male singaporeans, esp during reservist.

did u know mm just went china to beg them to send more scholars to sg? he also beg them to tolong us, leave a few behind so that they can help sg.

we have woke up and realised that its really a ‘NS for singaporeans, jobs for FT’ under pap. why would we want pap so that they (both pap and FT) can treat us as second class citizens?

“YES WE CAN!!””

What is really worrying is the pre-emptive meaures the PAP is continuing to build into the system. Pre-emptives strikes take out all the good as well….
It started with back door PAP MPs whom the constituents know nothing of them…
Now the downspiral is happening – misfits and self champions are going to make their way to parliament soon – the lives of the priviledged few….not elected by the people but allowed by the PAP system for its own purpose of self preservation and bringing in the unwanted including the existing NMPs just for the wayang show… the show going to be over soon for Singaporeans with the new polticals proposals….. and all the people – just go home – nothing has really changed for the better.
The common sense way to really want to do something fair – is to DO AWAY WITH THE GRC system and go for SMC system in a fair one man one vote contest …..unfortunately the PAP is afraid to take up the challenge…..and the truth is that it will remain so, as long as the goodies are there for themselves and their own people…….foreigners and FTs are PAP secret weapons in the open now…..

I really don’t understand why our basic voting rights shall be dictated on PAP’s terms.

PAP is only a political party in passing (if I may use the word), albeit that it has a ruling mandate by courtesy of its own underhand tactics skewed against the opposition. But that mandate doesn’t give PAP the all-inclusive right act in whatever way that it deems fit.

PAP is supposed to serve all Singaporeans and not only to its elite rulers or members only. We should insist that we do not need any charity from PAP as far as our basic rights are concerned.

Stop pretending or acting as if you really cared about our rights!

“Yes, we can!!!”

Of the 3, walkover MPs are the worst. They have no clear mandate or whatsoever from the people whom they represented.

Technically speaking, there should be another type: the “backdoor” MPs, who enters the parliament under the GRC umbrella. Honestly speaking, the people could be just voting for the leading candidate, who is a Minister and not those “dongbang” along! So actually, they also have a “blurred” mandate so to speak.

Thanks but no thanks. If PAP MPs are so good then they should put majority of them in single constituencies and see once for all (without latching the coat-tails of ministers, threats and goodies,etc) whether they get their mandate or not. Where is the ‘baptizm of fire’ if they merely get elected in without a electoral fight ?.

The people deserve to elect who they they want and the threat of freak results should not worry the PAP if they claim they are that good. Single constituencies have been even won by minority candidates such as Devan Nair, J.B. Jeyaratnam, Rohan Khamis and Govindasamy (Radin Mas) based on their merits. Yes, keep some small GRC with minority candidates but put the others(including ministers) on the burner of single constituencies and see the results.

The citizens and voters, now including the women voters, deserve better. No creative excuses, please.

The economy is faltering and our reserves are dwindling that even without an organised opposition.

aiyoyo

so many elites, what happen when world economy downturn?

do elites got good recovery plans? action plans?

hear a lot bla bla bla…

aiyoyo

I submit that this is not only a mockery of Parliament, but also a mockery of our Constitution, which can be changed at will any time the ruling party wishes to.

PAP is walking a dangerous street…..Look ….and read the comments…..

People are not happy…..the non-elected people to be in Parliment…the new idea of appointments by the PM…..these are not good times for such suggestions…..

What are they doing….i know the CDC’s are trying feed all who walks in…but what other long term plans…..

A man who can’t feed his child or worrys about what the family is going to eat tommorow..won’t want to listen to LHL’s political changes….

The best PAP can do is go back to 1988….3 candidate GRC’s….that would serve the minorities well….it’s simple as that.

The economic crisis….is here to stay for a long time……mind you…and PAP where are you….

I did not even border to read the newspaper, same sentiments, mockery of the democratic process and our intelligence. What I see is a white wash or massage to keep themselves in power as long as they can. I think nothing is wrong with what they are doing , really above board and they can do anything they want. At the end of the day people are not so easily hood winked these days. If the WP or the other opposition parties can present more cadres for the next election, I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of the PAP. The fact is these would be still NMPs and have no voice at all and are not elected by the people. Who are the real losers, we the people…….again.

14) Is Sg moving towards near complete Appointed and Nominated People Representation? on May 29th, 2009 7.12 am

Hey read the IBA report:

http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/Work_by_regions/Asia_Pacific/Singapore.aspx

19) SY on May 29th, 2009 8.53 am

You are assuming that PAP will always be honest, high integrity, clean, having the interest of the people in mind…. etc.

The truth is absolute power corrupt absolutely ….. If this is being practice, this will give room for abuse of power, and from the history of PAP, they will abuse it.

Moreover, the ministers are really not the brain behind all the ministerial matters, it is the PS, directors …. etc. I was a civil servant. Even press releases, and speeches are written by the “officers” approved by the directors and PS … then send to the ministers. What you see on TV on “today in parliament” is a very very short edited version of the parliament. Many times the ministers need time to answer the questions posted unexpectedly. The ministries and departments will function well even without a minister. The PS and directors of the various ministries were selected by the PAP, so why do we still need Ministers who are not elected but selected by the PM. IT is irrelevant.

SY, are you a PAPee?

I really tired and feel disgusted listen to LHL nosense…..Please those Singaporean who can vote, show them what Singaporean can do…let them lose one or more GRCs and in this case they will realise they can’t do watever they wan as they like. Thye got to be in tact with the ground….and I believe if they lose GRCs in this coming election, 1st they will think twice of more GRCs for future election, 2nd they will work for Singaporean in future if they wan to win in future election and not coming “back door” becoming MPs just “balls licking: their boss, 3rd we can let the opp candidates shows wat they are capable of, 4th if this happen in our coming election it will encourage more Singaporean coming forward joining politic and helping to built a better Singapore!!!

when gct mentioned few years ago that if opposition is really needed, it can be formed within its party. now it is real to what they have in mind way before.

to me nothing has really changed much other than making adjustment of their own error or screwed up so that it can be covered up.

leaders here giving totally wrong signal to future generation by way of such ridiculous one sided ruling system for 50 years and this however, will resulted in – GREED, POWER, SELF SERVED BEGETS EVILS in time to come.

very sad and pethatic political scenario in sg.

Must a walkover MP be a bad one? The fact is, if any incumbent MP does a bad job, then that MP will become an obvious target for a challenge from the opposition and will lose. The fact still reminds that a walkover MP must still work hard to win the loyalty of his people.

To Joel at 36) Yes, the civil servants make important contributions, and we have an excellent CS. But it is the ministers who decide the policies and set the direction. The point is that there are people who can make excellent ministers, but can’t be especially popular and therefore get elected. On the other hand, there are people who can be very well liked by the voters, but cant govern. It is good to have an additional mechanism to bring good people into cabinet, but must be done very carefully.
I never assume the PAP will always be honest, and I have always supported having more good, strong, honest opposition/independent MPs. We need them. Its the best for Singapore.

aft so many yr w/o the chance to vote,i became to wonder if many of us will not get to vote until the day we die true?pap has mke a small step n the opp should take whatever chances they have n work together n form a stronger n more organized team,.get dwn to work n plan for next election,mr chiam should lead a team n go for a grc,the grc system presently may be the pap best tactic to stay in power but it can be a double edge knife if the opp can have a strong n credit team,take dwn a grc is not impossible.i hope the next election we can see a strong opp team with mr low n mr chiam leading.we dont expect a anwar personality but a more united front

This increase in nos of NCMP scheme may have the effect of encouraging more voters of each GRC not afraid to vote for their idolised opposition candidates to get into parliament at least for the NCMP posts since LHL signals that he embraces opposition voice in parliament. The fear of voting for oppositions may be broken. The end result may be more opposition candidates are elected as mandated MPs

There should not be any walkover in an election. This is not a sports competition. It is about selecting people to lead

So if there is only one party contesting a ward, the people should be voting “Yes, I would like you to continue leading us”, or “No, we want someone better”.

Hence if people voted for “No”, the ward must be opened for all parties to contest.

“Must a walkover MP be a bad one?” : SY.

That is a question that only an electorate can answer. Unfortunately, since it is a walkover, no one can answer that question. This is why it is wrong.

You also got it wrong that should such an MP be bad at his job the opposition could just field a candidate to challenge him. You can be sure the opposition would want to do this but can they put in a challenge when the useless MP is hiding behind ministers who earn their keeps. The people cannot, because of a bad MP, vote out the ministers, can they? This is where the GRC system must be dismantled simply because it allows for such useless MP to enter by the back door.

Those who can have purposely chosen not to join opposition.
Game Over.
Self more important.

Hri Kumar, for a person not elected by the voters, you sure have a big mouth and undemocratic suggestions.

[...] these “changes”. To mention a few, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and [...]

39) SY on May 29th, 2009 2.00 pm

You are wrong SY, such a mechanism can only be abused. You are too naive to think that the mechanism will be used for the benefit of the country. Everyone need to be voted in. That is democratic and fair.

My wuestion is how do you know which ministers is doing his job and which is not since those working hard in the background are not being mentioned. You will never know, you are only told what they want you to see.

What I’m angry is that some people still blatantly vote for the govt despite all these issues.

gj at #45: please understand Hri Kumar was just ‘flying a balloon’ to test the wind on behalf of his masters. On his own he is not senior enough to float policy options.

The PAP has been testing out its younger MPs this past week or so, to see how they perform ie whether or not they can ‘hack it’.

SY: there is merit to your view at #19. Dr Richard Hoo, former Chairman and CEO of Shell Singapore and former Finance Minister comes to mind.

The question is, who is going to police it?

With a super-majority in parliament, the PAP can bend the political process to its will. To extend the PMs logic, they might as well declare the whole of Singapore as one GRC and challenge opponents to field complete slates to run government. That will produce an even stronger government and challenge the opposition to produce an even better slate. When does sublime turn to ridiculous?

Sorry …… should read Dr Richard Hu

“who is going to police it?”

based on trust lah.

when that guy said they gained how many billion and lost how many billion,
i suspect the people take his word for it. me also .

29) AllKindsofMP on May 29th, 2009 11.02 am
“Of the 3, walkover MPs are the worst. They have no clear mandate or whatsoever from the people whom they represented.”

MANDATE? IF appointed or nominated is it considered Mandate to have power?
i wonder.

Wah, 1st world ah. oleh….. oleh. oleh. oleh…….

I heard someone say GRC stands for “Go Round Circles” &
” Get Rotten Comfort”………………No Choice Meh!

GRC = Gerrymandering Round (the) Clock

You calculation is not quite correct. If the proposed system was applied in 2006, we would have:

84 elected MPs (including 38 walkovers)
7 NCMPs
9 NMPs
————
Total: 100 MPs
54 walkovers, NCMPs and NMPs

54%.

The next election will probably see an increase in the number of elected MPs, due to population increase.

I know the numbers are stil awful, but really it’s up to good people to join the opposition and stand for election, and for Singaporeans to choose wisely and not out of fear or ignorance.

Hi Joel,
Thanks for response at 47
Naive perhaps, but I think we can have non elected Ministers without the system being abused. I don’t claim to be 100% right, but I believe I am being no more naive that those who think that an elected MP is definitely a good one, that voters will always vote wisely, that a freer system will definitely lead to better government. I have met lots of people who vote for one party for the silliest reasons (this applies also for those who vote the PAP).

I think we can judge Ministers by the responses to crisis and their policies. For example, I believe that the Minister of Health in particular has been responding very well.

Hi Gerald,

how much will the projected proportion of minority representation go up or down after the next elections, assuming PM Lee’s reform plan and figures go through?

56) SY on May 30th, 2009 11.01 am

You see SY, if we start to allow no-elected Ministers to enter into parliament then we open the doors to abuse. We cannot be short-sighted as to see only the present, which seems logical to YOU…. but in the long run, it will definitely open doors for abuse. Human are like that!!!! Atomic power was never researched and developed to be used as a weapon of mass destruction, it was suppose to be an alternative power source. BUT WHAT DID WE USE IT FOR?

SY, you may be too young to see it or experience it. From history, we know PAP will eventually abuse it. FYI, the Health ministers did not response to the crisis, it is the crisis team…. you gave too much credit to the ministers. And by the way, he was instrumental in passing the legistration for legalising the organ trade policy. THAT SUCKS!!!!!

Ruling party (whoever is it) should not be allowed to change Constitution as and when they like it.

Constitution changes should be done only through a referrendum.

I tot there will be more single wards and less members in each GRC? So what is the problem? This new arrangement should allow more opposition to participate in the coming GE.

My only complain is we should go back to all single ward consts instead of having GRCs.

Its a mockery of people’s rights. We are slowly but surely moving towards losing out right to vote. These people are no longer accountable to the people. They pay themselves millions and appoint who they please. Just look at the attendance at paliament on the day of the debate, it was almost empty. they know that if they have to face the people in single seat .than they would have to perform. we need to vote them out

can anyone explain based on what merits or contributions do u choose a MP?

Someone once told this story; when he was young, he played a game where he created two football teams. One was his team and the other was the opposing team. I think everyone with average intelligence will know which team will obviously turn out to be the eventual winner.
I found this latest proposal by the PM very insulting and I think lot’s of common people like me are insulted. It’s the usual patronizing approach based on the premise that many of us are not able to think.
Why do we want to have dummies in parliament who are allowed to talk but cannot represent the views of the people and vote for changes that will truly improve the livelihood of the community? In fact, many of the approved and appointed NCMPs do not speak for the people but only speak for themselves or the interest groups that they represent. The end outcome is the community does not seem to benefit from anything discussed in parliament.
If we look indepth into this proposed changes, it seems to be a dose that will bring the elected opposition into ineffectiveness and thus the death of parliamentary democracy.

I can only remember our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of having previously said those famous words of “How to fix the opposition?”. So after being our Prime Minister for all these years, he is only capable of coming up with the latest Parliament changes as proof of “how to fix the opposition”.

So is the reason why he needed so many Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department as “assistants” to come up with these proposals?

So our PM was pre-occupied in the last few years with spending most of his time on how to fix the opposition. It’s no wonder that we have lost so many billions in our reserves. What a joke!

The Father, the Son and Holy PAP!

60) Mouseking on May 30th, 2009 5.15 pm

king, do not be taken for a ride by their words. The reason for smaller GRCs is due to re-boundary classification of the constituencies. The GRCs has been a winning bet for the PAP and they are confident that reducing the 6-members GRCs to 5-members will not affect the effectiveness of winning GRCs. As a matter of fact, GRCs is their baby, and reducing it to a 5-member type does not affect it much, giving more liberty for the re-drawing of the boundaries to suit the PAP in the next election. In fect if you calculate …. if the GRCs is reduced to 5 MPs …. every 5 reduction can create another GRCs … Now they can put in 6 backbenchers instead of 5.

The PAP will not abolish the GRCs system. HOWEVER:

If according to the PAP, that GRCs is good because it consolidate resources and serve the residents better and it is not used to disadvantage the opposition, then make all constituencies contest on its own like a SMC. After the election they can group together as a GRC and serve as a group even if there exist amongst them a opposition MPs. This is fairer, if the PAP really are so concern about fair play…..

That means, every MPs have to be open to be contested even if they belongs to a GRC, After the election then the grouping will take into effect FOR THE GOOD OF THE CONSTITUENCIES……

Will they do it? I am doubtful, because the GRCs is a tool to fix up the opposition.

AS for the 12 SMC, it is unlike they will fill it up with ministers, at least not all of the 12 SMCs, it is too much of a risk for the PAP. Everyone knows, including PAP, that hey will loose more sits to the oppositions the next election. The extra SMC is used by PAP as a damage control tactics ….. by calculation …. if the opposition can only take 2 seats out of 9 SMCs, then 12 SMCs will probably gives the opposition 1 more seat….. DAMAGE CONTROL !!!!

To change ….. The opposition must contest every seats and give the people a chance to vote for them….. AND the people MUST VOTE FOR THEM…. PUT AS MUCH oppositions into the parliament as possible ….

THAT will tell the PAP we are not idiots and we will not be fooled by them. If they do not represent the people, we want someone else who does…………

To add to my recent posting….. It is time for the OPPOSITION to work together to come out with an alternative governance plan and strategies,

Especially on the checks on themselves if they become the government.

How the law will be independent of the ruling party and that government is not above the law.

How they will treasure freedom of speech. More channels for public to engage the government.

The revamp of the salary structures of the government.

The helps in both social and financial for the common people.

How CPF can be fairer to the citizens.

How ISA can be amended to safe guard it being abuse.

How to ensure that whatever government is ruling, they cannot change constitution to suit themselves.

Just some of the issues, people want to hear. The public do not want to hear skeletons in hidden closets…. they want to hear what the opposition will do for them if they get elected. THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT!!!!

60) Mouseking on May 30th, 2009 5.15 pm

//I tot there will be more single wards and less members in each GRC? So what is the problem? …My only complain is we should go back to all single ward consts instead of having GRCs.//

But please remember that the GRC is a two edged sword. It works both way.

In good times the ruling party will win the GE as there are many walkovers since the opposition parties fear of losing their deposits in GRCs anchored by sure-win, heavy-weight ministers.

Not so when the economy is very bad and a Great Depression looms with a fall in the GDP of say 25%, high unemployment and people are crying for a change.

A freak election then could wipe out the PAP as GRCs after GRCs are lost to the opposition parties. This is the ultimate nightmare scenario for the PAP, if and when the folks in the heartlands become really angry and turn away from the PAP. At that time even an offer for free HDB lift upgrades will not work.

There is a bleak economic tectonic shift coming especially when the time comes for another General Election in 2011 or if decided by the PM in early 2010.

Since “unity is strength” IMHO, the opposition parties should put their differences aside and form an “opposition caucus” to leverage on this coming economic perfect storm and give the PAP a run for their money in the next GE.

#22 , I also have the same doubt as you.

Given that for the last 50 years, there is no strong Opposition party due to whatever reasons there are, it seems to me that the People can ACCEPT or live with having no such Strong Party. Current Opposition parties cannot be considered strong. WP can be considered ok but not strong in terms of the number of ‘good men’ (and women) it has. It has used up so many decades and still only 2 MPs in the house. 1 of them has no bill veto power.

There is Clearly many talents in singapore judging by the 81 MPs in the house.

84 MPs for the dot, a very small country. So many hundreds of thousands are not citizens but PRs or FTs or FWs or expats dependents or here for study or tour.

Thus, I feel that it is very clear there is enough talents. At least a few strong talents exists as potential new Opposition Party candidates. The Reality is for several possible reasons, they Consciously Would not Join to Balance the situation.

This realisation leads me to feel that singaporeans know they are Responsible AND they Consciously made the Decision for the last 50 years. So, I WONDER is is it true that Singaporeans in General Consciously want such a situation we see today where there IS NO shortage of Talents. There is prolly a Shortage of Stepping Forward?

Is it fair to say the PEOPLE have been Responsible for the status quo , which we cannot say there is no room for improvement? If so, I can then say, You People Are Responsible.

?????????

For Sg to move to the next century….we must go demolish GRC……best man get voted in…..otherwise just remove parliment…save all the troubles.
GRC seems to create new problems MPs…fire lah…throw chair lah….what else????? Single MP will be on the ball at all times otherwise ….OUT you go….the next election.Hmmmm good ideas… any supporters????

68) Curious on May 31st, 2009 9.42 pm

In this issue, I agree with you.

I would like you guys to think further than the 5-member GRCs and the 12 SMCs and consider for a moment whether this PAP government would put itself at a disadvantage so that there is a better chance for the opposition to win in an election contest. Why would the PAP want to do this and create disharmony, distrust and disdain within its own camp? This is the ‘foolishness’ I spoke of when I said that this PAP government still think of the electorate as a stupid one, like we have always seemed to be.

We, the people must be able to think one or two steps ahead of the PAP, to fully grasp an understanding of where these changes are leading us to. I believe that come election time, you will not get a straight fight between a PAP candidate against an opposition candidate in each of the SMCs. I am expecting a three-corner or even a four-corner fight. Mark my words, there will be a sudden increase of independent candidates, which I expect will be placed there by the PAP camp – to dilute the votes of the opposition – and effect a win for PAP.

Likewise for the GRCs. Do not be surprised if there are teams of independent candidates stepping forward to form three-corner fights in hotly disputed areas. We, the voters, must be ready for such eventualities and tell ourselves now, that should there be any three-cornered fight, our votes must not go to any unknown independent candidates.

:”Mandate” is not something that is black and white or a whole or none thing. There is a high level of mandate or a low level of mandate.

NMPs are selected by mostly PAP MPs who have a mandate from the people.

NCMPs have garnered a high percent of votes against PAP candidates. Some NCMPs were that close to unseating PAP candidates. If the NCMP was given randomly by the PAP govt in the sense that even those who lost their deposits can be NCMP, then yes it is not fair.

You forget that NMPs and NCMPs are already not full MPs and their powers are clipped in lieu of the weaker mandate they receive. If they have the same powers of elected MPs, then yes, it is not fair.

Walkover PAP MPs can also be said to have a bigger mandate than elected PAP MPs since nobody dares to even challenge them.

Is the British House of Lords a mockery of the British Parliament? Ask yourself this.

Hi Gemami,

Our parliament already resembles a bicarmel house. Walkover PAP MPs form the Upper House while Non-Walkover PAP, Opposition MPs, NCMPs and NMPs form the Lower House. It is a sad state of affairs.

it has been said that a political party’s main goal is to stay in power. thus anything and everything they do is for the achievement of that main goal.

Hi Donaldson,

It is indeed and the worst part of it all is that the people are now being made into players of their political game. We have been made the reason for the changes. I am not interested in their politcal game. All I want is for my interest as well as the interests of my Singapore family to be well looked after.

Why are we paying for their political games, just like Hougang and Potong Pasir residents have been paying for their choice of an opposition leader? This is not governing. I really do not know what it is called.

Frankly I am quite surprised and happy to hear that the ruling party has unilarterally make effort to have more opposition memers and NCMP in Parliament. The reason is that they want more sparring so that policies can be vigorously debated.

Whether they make good use of the opportunity is up to them. If they do then all Singaporeans will benefit.

71) Joel Low on June 1st, 2009 3.09 am

//Curious on May 31st, 2009 9.42 pm, In this issue, I agree with you.//

Thank you Joel. IMHO, the strategy for the Opposition Caucus should be to pool resources and talents, work the ground early and mobilize the constituencies with a view to contest EVERY GRC and SMC in the next GE.

This needs a lot of organization and money and fund-raising should start immediately.

Last week Obama was in Beverly Hills , California to attend a US$3 million fund-raising dinner for the Democratic Party. Each plate cost the 1000 or so attendees US$2,500. And many couples paid US$35,000 for dinner and a photo opportunity with the President.

In Singapore I suggest that a few similar, less-expensive fund-raising dinners be organized at say a posh hotel each time plus a nationwide fund-raising campaign by telephone calls and through the internet but all such activities must not violate The Political Donations Act.

Since the opposition parties currently have little or no visibility, the Opposition Caucus must think big and strive to project a “visibility” by drawing up a list of “shadow ministers” of really talented people in Singapore to give the PAP a run of the money.

Then the Singapore people can judge for themselves whether the Opposition Caucus’ team of “shadow ministers” has the credibility and ability to replace the PAP should they win the next GE and if they like what they see IMHO they will vote for them without hesitation.

Errata: 78) Curious on June 1st, 2009 11.06 pm

Sorry, last 4 words in the penultimate paragraph should read “a run for the money.

Knowing how thin-skinned the ruling party is, the opposition parties must be careful they are not charged with ‘campaigning’.

I agree, they need to get their acts together well before elections are formally called.

Re #67 by JL and #78 by Curious

Good suggestions for the opposition parties to develop their strategies. In particular, they should start by laying out clearly a promise to propose a bill to put the GRC voting system and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums; the intent is to prevent changes that suit a majority party. The GRC was sold as a way to bring some minority representation into parliament but has since been over-exploited to bring in others without true mandates from the constituencies at the expense of other parties or independents. It is a good idea turned into a bad one. If excesses are not checked it tends to get worse, and relying on self-regulation is no assurance – yes we may get a generation of good people but human weaknesses creep in along the way, especially now that the skewed money benefit for the ruling has become a distraction from passionate public service. It doesn’t matter if the proposed bills are likely to be defeated but it gives a reason to vote them and test their sincerity.

80) Peter Sellers on June 2nd, 2009 12.39 pm

//Knowing how thin-skinned the ruling party is, the opposition parties must be careful they are not charged with ‘campaigning’.//

Such “opposition caucus” would be advised by a team of constitutional lawyers so that it won’t run foul of the law. But this needs a large organization and plenty of money and talented people to run it.

//I agree, they need to get their acts together well before elections are formally called.//

If they wait until the election date is announced it will be too late and if they think that they can take on the PAP’s well-oiled political machinery by going to the GE with a fragmented group of small, poorly funded opposition parties they will live to regret it and deserve to be relegated to stay in the political wilderness for the next 44 years.

81) TS Lee on June 2nd, 2009 1.30 pm

//In particular, they should start by laying out clearly a promise to propose a bill to put the GRC voting system and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums//

I agree and in future the 14 GRCs should only have two candidates each, one a minority candidate and the other a non minority candidate. There is no legitimate reason to have a 5 or 6 member GRC.

More importantly the Opposition Caucus should promise to lower the pay of the ministers and top echelon of the civil service, help the elderly poor folks and up the baby bonus if they are voted in to form the new govt.

// and future constitutional changes on voters rights to referendums//

I also agree with you here too as only the citizens can change the constitution.

Can the management committee in a social club change the club’s constitution?
No, the social club’s constitution can only be changed by three quarters of the members voting to make the change.

I think a lot of people might have forgotton that how GRC came in place….the PAP has been monitoring every election rally closely. They say saw the crowd and also saw their own crowd. It was worrying. GRC manage to serve their purpose.Curtails opposition. What is good for the Goverment not necessarily good for the people. To have strong goverment is to have strong oppostion. Checks and balance.If my memory did not fail me, one PAP lost in Potong Pasir. He won in GRC.That’s is politics in singapore.They can come out with all kind rubbish like NMPs or other things, just to please themselves that they have make changes for the people. Singaporean’s IQ is not that LOWWWWWW!!!!

aiyoyo

some/most of the elites walk-over one, how to choose?

aiyoyo

useless all talk no action NMPs like Thio Li-Ann should have been thrown away long ago. yet useful ones NMPs like Eunice Olsen (vs town council minibonds losses) are quitting. what in the world is this crap?

Thio Li-Ann has got a misguided set of values to keep her fire in her belly. besides she has a mother aka Feminist Mentor who must have been constantly indoctrinating her into a drone.

Eunice Olsen likely woken up to the fact she’s not to keen to just “make noise” & so left. likely a women with an independant thinking brain, ambitious go getting is not going to just “make noise” sit or stand. leave before learned helplessness sets in.

just my observation.

#83 by Curious,

Indeed, top government remuneration is an opportunity for the opposition to score here too as the ruling party is in denial that this matter is a lightning rod for discontent. It is a good idea to remunerate them sufficiently so that they are not distracted to look for supplementary income by leveraging on their positions but in the construct either greed got into the way or they forgot that good politics does not equal to good commercial sense (NKF at one stage made the same error when it forgot that a charity is not the same as a commercial enterprise).

The emphasis is not simply to reduce their pay but to propose something better. Political masters and civil servants must be considered separately. The type of people that can excel in one is different from the other. Let us make some suggestions for all the political parties to think about bearing in mind that good proposals should bring into government good politicians with passion for improving the lives of all citizens and whose present and future material needs are sufficiently taken care. If it is personal wealth they seek, they are not the ones we need.

88) TS Lee on June 3rd, 2009 5.07 pm

//The emphasis is not simply to reduce their pay but to propose something better. Political masters and civil servants must be considered separately. The type of people that can excel in one is different from the other//

I agree.

//If it is personal wealth they seek, they are not the ones we need.//

I could not agree more. Excellently put it.

PAP MP Hri Kumar has responded to Online Citizen:

http://hri-kumar.blogspot.com/2009/06/nominated-ministers.html

My suggestion in Parliament last week to allow the PM to appoint Ministers from outside the pool of MPs has attracted support, criticism and speculation.

Some people speculated I was putting forward the suggestion on someone else’s instructions. That is not how things work. No one tells me what to say or vets my speeches. The first time the leaders knew of my speech was when they heard me in Parliament.

To william the con @90
“No one tells me what to say or vets my speeches.”

- We are not newborns! They don’t have to tell you or vet your speeches. Its called self-censorship and you know exactly what will get their tails wagging.

To PAP MP Hri Kumar:

UK & US have powerful independent bodies including the media as Govt watchdogs besides equally strong oppositions. Think for yourself the case of Spore!

It is absurd to have Nominated Ministers in a unichameral legislature without direct elections for head of government.

In the US, the cabinet is appointed. But the members of cabinet are members of the executive, not members of the legislature, and cannot vote on bills. Of course they cannot; they have no mandate! Also, they are appointed by a president who is directly elected. If the performance of the cabinet is no good, the people only need to remove the president at the next election. They do not have to remove half the members of parliament. Also, the presidential elections are conducted in a democratic environment, with a free press, a preponderance of ideas and no lack of people who will act on them since they do not live in a climate of fear or in a culture of sycophancy.

Where there are bichameral legislatures, with upper and lower houses, it is possible for there to be unelected ministers, but these ministers have limited legislative powers because they sit in an unelected chamber. Also, unelected houses have their roots in ridiculous class structures that thankfully Singapore does not have (though sadly it seems to be emerging). Singapore rejected that form of parliament, and quite rightly so.

It is not legitimate to stuff parliament with partisans for political purposes. I am sure all are agreed on that. Yet, it is difficult to see how Nominated Ministers, in Singapore’s political landscape, can in the long term result in anything else.